Sadhu Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 13 March, 2013

Punjab-Haryana High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court Sadhu Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 13 March, 2013 CWP No.3050 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3050 of 2013 Date of decision:13.03.2013 Sadhu Singh .....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.Satbir Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr.Gunjan Rishi, Advocate, for NHAI. ***** G.S.Sandhawalia J. 1. Written statement filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place. 2. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant solatium and interest as per provisions of Sections 23 & 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the 'Act') for the land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for brevity, the 'Highways Act'), in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Golden Iron & Steel Forging Vs. Union of India & others 2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 375. 3. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that land measuring 30 acres 6 kanals and 4 marlas, falling in the revenue estates of villages Usman Sahid
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/5311392/ 1

Sadhu Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 13 March, 2013

and Chak Kasim in the Sub-Division Dasuya and revenue estates of Dala, Rasulpur, Darapur and Urmar, in the jurisdiction of Municipal Committee CWP No.3050 of 2013 2 of Tanda Urmar and revenue estates of Jhingar Kalan, Kainthan and Dasuya, falling in the Municipal Committee of Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur had been acquired for the public purpose of widening and four laning of Jalandhar-Pathankot National Highway. The land was acquired vide notifications issued under Sections 3-A (dated 24.12.2004) and 3-D (dated 11.07.2005) of the Highways Act, whereafter, the award dated 08.05.2007 was passed. Against the same, respondents No.1 & 2 approached respondent No.4, who was appointed as Arbitrator and enhanced the compensation vide award dated 28.01.2009. The petitioner was owner of 38 marlas of land falling in village Dala Tehsil Dasuya District Hoshiarpur and was awarded compensation of `38,00,000/- but no solatium and interest had been granted as per provisions of Section 23 and 28 of the Act. Accordingly, reliance was placed upon M/s Golden Iron & Steel Forging (supra) that the petitioner could not be deprived of the solatium and interest. The award passed by respondent No.3 and subsequently enhanced by the Arbitrator had not given such statutory benefits inspite of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Reference was also made to similar orders passed by this Court in CWP No.7457 of 2012 titled Bhag Singh & another Vs. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar & others and CWP No.14642 of 2012 titled Prem Kaur Vs. Union of India & others, both decided on 27.09.2012. 4. Respondents no. 1 and 2, in their reply, pleaded that the acquisition was as per the Highways Act. The award had been passed and the Arbitrator had been appointed for settlement of compensation which was
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/5311392/ 2

Sadhu Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 13 March, 2013

enhanced by him and the amount was deposited for onward disbursement. The petitioners have neither approached the answering respondents nor sent any notice and accordingly, due process had been followed. However, CWP No.3050 of 2013 3 wherever this Court had allowed further payment and the same had been demanded by the competent authority, the answering respondent was to deposit the same with the competent authority for onward disbursement to the landowners. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, it emerges that the benefits of solatium and interest to the petitioners are admissible in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Golden Iron & Steel Forging's case (supra) as no serious objection was raised regarding its applicability. It has been held therein that while taking into account the fact that the land was acquired under one statute or the other, different compensation could not be granted to different landowners, for different public purposes. It was also observed held that where the statute denies solatium and interest to the land owner, the said provision must satisfy the tests of reasonable classification, based upon an intelligible differentia between the public purpose that underlines the two statutes and must disclose a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Accordingly, it was recorded that all acquisition made under the Highways Act would necessarily have to grant solatium and interest in terms similar to those contained in Sections 23 (2) & 28 of the Act. Relevant observations reads as under: "85. Solatium is not a largesse or a mere subsidy that the State doles out to a hapless landowner in discharge of some benevolent exercise of governmental power. Solatium is an amount, paid by the State to an unwilling land owner, for compulsory appropriation of his property. The word solatium draws its meaning from the word "solace" that is comfort money given as a statutorily recognized gesture of conciliation for compulsorily depriving a land owner of his property. The importance of "solatium" cannot be over emphasized and any departure therefrom would, in our considered opinion, be justified only where the enactment discloses a CWP
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/5311392/ 3

Sadhu Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 13 March, 2013

No.3050 of 2013 4 reasonable classification for treating land owners differently. Solatium forms an integral component of compensation and, therefore, can only be denied where the statute satisfies the tests of valid classification. 86. Difference in procedure would not govern rights of parties to compensation. The difference, as repeatedly emphasized herein before, must be such as would disclose a valid classification based upon an intelligible differentia and not mere differences of procedure. The public purpose must be such as cannot be achieved by resort to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and disclose such a distinct or peculiar object as could not be achieved under the Land Acquisition Act. We have carefully perused the Act, in our endeavour to understand the so called differentia sought to be pressed into service by counsel for the respondents and have made a concerted effort to understand their submissions but express our inability to determine any justification whether legal, factual or theoretical that would have us hold that the public purpose, underlying the amending Act constitutes a separate class and is so different from the public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act that denial of solatium and interest could be held to be based upon a valid classification and consequently a valid exercise of legislative power. We find no basis whether in the objects and reasons, in the written reply, the written submissions, as also from the assistance rendered to hold anything other than that as the provisions of the Act do not provide for grant of solatium and interest, they suffer from the vice of discrimination and violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and would, therefore, be held to be ultra vires. xxxx xxxx xxxx 90. We, therefore, strike down Section 3J and Section 3G of the Act as arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, in so far as they deny payment of solatium and interest and hold that landowners, who are compulsorily divested of their property under the impugned statute would henceforth be entitled to solatium and interest as envisaged by the provisions of Section 23 and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. xxxx xxxx xxxx 94. As we have upheld the legality of the proceedings for acquisition, the writ petitions are dismissed in respect thereof. But as the provisions of Section 3J and 3G are ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, all acquisitions made under the CWP No.3050 of 2013 5 National Highway Act, 1956 would necessarily have to grant solatium and interest, in terms similar to those contained in Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act." 6. From the perusal of the award of the Arbitrator dated 28.01.2009, it is noticed that he granted the current market price of the land or in the alternative, directed the authorities to pay the interest on the land price, determined in the year of land acquisition only. Accordingly, respondents No.1 & 2 are directed to deposit the amount of interest and solatium (in case the current price had not been paid) in terms of the Act, with respondent No.3, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, who shall, thereafter, disburse the same to the petitioner,
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/5311392/ 4

Sadhu Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 13 March, 2013

within a period of one month from the receipt of the same. 7. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above said terms. (G.S.Sandhawalia) JUDGE 13.03.2013 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) sailesh JUDGE

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/5311392/